At the end of the day, people realize that in order to have a just, compassionate, righteous and fair society, the government must be responsible, rational and committed to put power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of many, rather than the elite. A diverse, plural political system that accommodates the various views of different interest groups will be a good starting point for peace, political stability and economic prosperity for the country.

Yes. Keep in mind a woman's social position throughout most of recorded history has been just above that of a slave; whether one in anchient Greece, where most slaves were more or less cuacasion, to the late 1800s in America. In many cases, it was religeous, remember you gave us poor, unsuspecting men a bite of the Apple. In monotheism, women are punished for instigating the fall of man, men are punished because we are, well pick one, 1) stupid, 2) wooses, 3) .... whipped, or some combination of the three.

In places like Greece in the 500 B.C.E.s, well, you were simply ovens and maids. There were very few societies, or men in any society, between then and the 1900s where women, as a group, were given their due.

At the time the 55 white, wealthy men got together in Philadelphia in 1787, it was hard to tell the difference between societal views on women then and 2000 years earlier. What changed, of course, a new way of viewing society, Liberalism, and its enstanciation in our Constitution. After that, it only took 150 more years for 1/2 the world's population "to be granted" (not that women didn't fight very hard for that benevolence) not quite equal status with men.

Also, besides not thinking women were intelligent enough to vote, we were probably scared to death what might become of us once you did.

My intention of asking the question was to try and understand the grand stalwart of exclsion, the Catholic church. It seems that either god is a discriminator or men simply do not understand his gospel.

Women were considered chattels practically. It was thought that they did not have the mental make-up that men were given to make the careful decisions reqiured of an electorate. They eventurally got the vote, because as citizens of this nation, they were entitled to it. (Short answer to a complex process).

You are really asking two questions. First, why were women excluded from the political process in the first place. Second, why did women eventually get the right to vote (thousands of years after the first known voting happened).

Your phrase "Why did men find it necessary . . ." conveys a few assumptions which, I think, are anachronistic. That is, they don't take into account the fact that, in different historical times and cultures, people thought differently.

Several people mention a general tendency to stop treating women (or other sub-groups, such as racial sub-groups) as property, or as less than human, or as less than men. But it's complicated. For example, women were more equal in Jewish society than in Greek society, and had more rights. But voting never happened in Jewish society. When the Israelite people had a nation of their own, it was a monarchy.

So we have to look at each culture in history separately & address three issues: Did voting happen at all? What was the status of women? What was the perceived role of women?

Voting existed in ancient Athens. Only owners of property (land, real estate) could vote & only men could own property. So you might say that the problem started there. From then on, voting was a very spotty phenomenon. Rome was a republic for a brief period. Most of the time, most of the world has been monarchies, despotism, or war and anarchy, where voting wasn't happening at all.

Politics and power have always been hierarchical. Only the few at the top had a vote. A big change was started in the Magna Carta in England in 1215, which began to address the rights of the people. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times - the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot. It planted the idea that all men or all people ought to have equal rights and equal protections under the law.

But there is a root problem in the English language. Does "all men" mean all people (men and women) or all men (males only)? So when the Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal," are women included? The language brought forth ideas that were ahead of their time.

Over decades, the broadest ideas are slowing growing forward. All men are equal, no matter the color of their skin. Women are equal to men. Children also have rights. Non-citizens and felons have rights. Slowly, through the activitsm of the oppressed and their allies, we move forward.

My intention is to highlight the state of insanity that supported and in some cases still support the ideology of the ruling class. It is by no means limited to race as all cultures are patriarchal. If the pursuit of man is civility why hold on to th

"If the pursuit of man is civility." . . . "man, or humanity." And I see civility - even civilization - as a mere stage in human development. Civilization brings war and tyranny. I hope we people outgrow it soon, and move on to better things.

Men have been civil, Man will never be because it is not in our nature to be entirely so. Just look how hard one side of our political spectrum is pushing to take us back to a society based on the social and economic standards of the 1800s.

I think we agree overall, but I use a different language. I hear MintInfo and My Esoteric using the language of society, rights, and politics. I use the language of the collective unconscious and the evolution of consciousness.

I use a language that pple with a spacific ideology might undrstnd bcause they think that they r at the pinnacle of human dvlopment. I will bear witness that there is a religuous institution in every community but it's only so through indoctrination

Should women have the right to vote?Am working on my first political hub and gathering information. I would like to hear both sides of the opinionated coin about whether or not women should have the right to vote or if...

Should convicts and ex convicts have the right to vote?now with the elections coming up the question rises: if you are a convict do you have a right to vote? Is the president not there to represent the whole nation, all...

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, considered a reformer by the standards of his own ultraconservative kingdom, decreed on Sunday that women will for the first time have the right to vote and...

Should I just accept that my husband won't vote?I almost never disagree with my husband. However he has the "No need to vote when they're all the same" mentality. I am really wanting him to vote or at least...

Are you registered to vote, and if so, are you going to vote in the upcoming election?I really do not care to know for whom you will or will not be voting, but just to know how many are registered and are going to vote,...